Whilst you may be correct, would it not be fair to say that in context of rampant messianism before the rise of Christianity it might have been interpreted that way, by rabbis etc scanning the texts for any prophecies, just as it has been by Christians?

What about Daniel 9, which explicitly says the anointed one would be put to death?

Whilst you may be correct, would it not be fair to say that in context of rampant messianism before the rise of Christianity it might have been interpreted that way, by rabbis etc scanning the texts for any prophecies, just as it has been by Christians?

What about Daniel 9, which explicitly says the anointed one would be put to death?

Anything is possible, but i'd argue that if there was a such a view, it was held very minority of jews regarding Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

What i've read on Daniel 9, yeah that is more clear. I am aware that at least some jews think that messiah will be put to death.

As for christians and their Jesus, i would be a lot more interested to see a prophecy in OT that says messiah will rise to heaven on a third day after he has died. That is the supernatural part of the prophecy, but is rarely discussed and instead the focus is on non supernatural part, which is just a torture & death.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."

MarsCydonia wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show that no author would invent the crucifixtion.

There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't.

This is a big big issue in New Testament scholarship, assumptions and arguements that originated from apologists have crossed the line into mainstream scholarship.

The argument that "no one would ever make this stuff up" is bad apologetics.

Another example would be the Q hypothesis. Apologists want the gospels to be earlier and to have more source material so as not to appear to have originated with Mark. Its accepted that Matthew and Luke used Mark, but the idea that Luke used Matthew is dismissed for no reason. So they invent a Q document and all of a sudden we have more sources.

The simplest explanation that fits the evidence 100% is that Luke used Mark and Matthew. No need for a hypothetical source that no one has a copy of.

leroy wrote:hopefully I am wrong, but I don't think anyone would ever imagine a crucified messiah after reading those lines.

Maybe not a crucified messiah from those specific lines, but it certainly makes for something that can be interpreted as a suffering and dying messiah, its not that much of a stretch from there to a crucified messiah. Especially adding in other verses might lead to ideas about crucifixion:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

- Zechariah 12:10

It's not that much of a stretch in my view, to see that a Messianic sect (of which there were many) came to believe in a messiah that would be crucified.

But even more important, you have to provide evidence that Jews from 2,000 years ago where expecting a crucified messiah and that they understood those texts in the same way you are.

The evidence is there in the scripture. For further reading see this article. The evidence is abundant, it is just ignored by people like Bart Ehrman, who insist without evidence that a dying messiah was anathema to the Jews.

but I would rather to be wrong on that point, if you prove that the crucifixion of Jesus was prophesied with thousands of years in advance that would absolutely prove that the bible is the word of God.

The point is that Jesus was never crucified, there is no prophecy with regard to actual history, the idea of a crucified messiah was extrapolated from the OT prophecy, and then euhemerized in the gospels to appear as though it were historical fact.

talking about those verses and how to interpret them is irrelevant,

we know that jews where not expecting someone like Jesus and we know that death by crucifixion was an obstacle for preachers.

but I would rather to be wrong ..........imagine if a messiah like Jesus would have been predicted with thousands of years of advance. that would be very strong evidence for the divinity of the bible

MarsCydonia wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to show that no author would invent the crucifixtion.

you where told that the comment was not meant to be an absolute claim and was not meant to be taken literally true.

when someone says something like....

No mother would torture and kill her children

everybody, except for you, would understand that the claim is not meant to be taken as if it where literally and absolutely true, sure there are some mothers that would torture and kill their children, but what the author of that quote is implying si that it is unlikely for a mother to do such thing.

Whilst you may be correct, would it not be fair to say that in context of rampant messianism before the rise of Christianity it might have been interpreted that way, by rabbis etc scanning the texts for any prophecies, just as it has been by Christians?

What about Daniel 9, which explicitly says the anointed one would be put to death?

Rabbis killed Jesus precisely because according to them, none of the signs of a messiah where fulfilled ..........this is why he was accused for blasphemy. \

this is an embarrassing truth that we Christians have to deal with, it would be much more confortable for us to say that Jesus fulfilled unambiguously all the prophecies.

leroy wrote:that is funny because according to Bart Ehrman and many other atheists, the gospels are full of irreconciliable contradictions .

so which one is it? are the gospels identical, or are they full of contradictions?.......you cant have both.

That is indeed funny because what moron thinks that "based on" means "identical"?

Well, I can think of one...

leroy wrote:tyou where told that the comment was not meant to be an absolute claim and was not meant to be taken literally true.

Oh I know you're attempting this defense Leroy."No author would invent the crucifixion but I do not mean absolutely "would not invent" even if I absolutely refuse to accept that"

So, you say no author would invent the crucifixion but admit an author could but refuse to accept an author could invent the crucifixion despite saying it could happen you refuse to accept it could happen despite admitting an author could have invented the crucifixion...

Sorry if its expected of you to hold a position and not reverse everytime its challenged. But that would require some honesty, wouldn't it?

So, you should be in agreement that an author could have invented the crucifixion and now will come the comment where you refuse to accept the crucifixion could have been invented...

And you say everyone else is not clear

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

Laurens wrote:The simplest explanation that fits the evidence 100% is that Luke used Mark and Matthew. No need for a hypothetical source that no one has a copy of.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

that is funny because according to Bart Ehrman and many other atheists, the gospels are full of irreconciliable contradictions .

so which one is it? are the gospels identical, or are they full of contradictions?.......you cant have both.

Passages from Mark are lifted verbatim, and sometimes with changes of wording or context in both Matthew and Luke. Or things are lifted and changed for theological reasons. Likewise passages from Matthew also appear in Luke with similar changes.

The changes often create the contradictions along with the narrative parts composed without reference material.

Its far too simplistic a view to state that they are either identical or contradictory.

leroy wrote:that is funny because according to Bart Ehrman and many other atheists, the gospels are full of irreconciliable contradictions .

so which one is it? are the gospels identical, or are they full of contradictions?.......you cant have both.

That is indeed funny because what moron thinks that "based on" means "identical"?

Well, I can think of one...

leroy wrote:tyou where told that the comment was not meant to be an absolute claim and was not meant to be taken literally true.

Oh I know you're attempting this defense Leroy."No author would invent the crucifixion but I do not mean absolutely "would not invent" even if I absolutely refuse to accept that"

So, you say no author would invent the crucifixion but admit an author could but refuse to accept an author could invent the crucifixion despite saying it could happen you refuse to accept it could happen despite admitting an author could have invented the crucifixion...

Sorry if its expected of you to hold a position and not reverse everytime its challenged. But that would require some honesty, wouldn't it?

So, you should be in agreement that an author could have invented the crucifixion and now will come the comment where you refuse to accept the crucifixion could have been invented...

And you say everyone else is not clear

yes, I agreed with that long ago.................the argument is an has always been that it is unlikely (not impossible() fro an author to invent the crucifixion...............this was clarified long ago.

this is like the 10th time I clarify this to you

the first time, I take the blame, maybe I did not expressed the argument correctly.

but the 2, 3th, 4th.........10th time have no justification, you are just trolling

Laurens wrote:Passages from Mark are lifted verbatim, and sometimes with changes of wording or context in both Matthew and Luke. Or things are lifted and changed for theological reasons. Likewise passages from Matthew also appear in Luke with similar changes.

The changes often create the contradictions along with the narrative parts composed without reference material.

Its far too simplistic a view to state that they are either identical or contradictory.

the point is that if Look copied entirely from Mathew and Mark we would expect contradictions,

it is widely accepted by scholars that Look used Mathew, Mark and other sources of his own.

leroy wrote:yes, I agreed with that long ago.................the argument is an has always been that it is unlikely (not impossible() fro an author to invent the crucifixion...............this was clarified long ago.

this is like the 10th time I clarify this to you

the first time, I take the blame, maybe I did not expressed the argument correctly.

but the 2, 3th, 4th.........10th time have no justification, you are just trolling

You really did not understand the point.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

leroy wrote:yes, I agreed with that long ago.................the argument is an has always been that it is unlikely (not impossible() fro an author to invent the crucifixion...............this was clarified long ago.

this is like the 10th time I clarify this to you

the first time, I take the blame, maybe I did not expressed the argument correctly.

but the 2, 3th, 4th.........10th time have no justification, you are just trolling

Too bad this is not an actual bet because you'd be losing when betting that everyone is dumb as you are.

well given that you are unable to explain things clearly and unambiguously, I have no other option but to wait until someone from this forum explains your point.

it shouldn't be hard since according to you, your point was simple and clear, nobody from this forum except from me should have any problem in understanding and explaining your point .

just for the record, I believe that your point was that I made an absolute statement that I was unable to prove. Given that this is not your point, you most have an other point that I was unable to get...........lets see if someone can help me.

leroy wrote:[well given that you are unable to explain things clearly and unambiguously, I have no other option but to wait until someone from this forum explains your point.

it shouldn't be hard since according to you, your point was simple and clear, nobody from this forum except from me should have any problem in understanding and explaining your point .

just for the record, I believe that your point was that I made an absolute statement that I was unable to prove. Given that this is not your point, you most have an other point that I was unable to get...........lets see if someone can help me.

You're making the mistake that someone else in this forum will be not only be willing but also be able to educate you. In other words, you're asking the impossible because there is no educating you, there's only pointing out that you're wrong and hopefully value for others who might learn why.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

leroy wrote:[well given that you are unable to explain things clearly and unambiguously, I have no other option but to wait until someone from this forum explains your point.

it shouldn't be hard since according to you, your point was simple and clear, nobody from this forum except from me should have any problem in understanding and explaining your point .

just for the record, I believe that your point was that I made an absolute statement that I was unable to prove. Given that this is not your point, you most have an other point that I was unable to get...........lets see if someone can help me.

You're making the mistake that someone else in this forum will be not only be willing but also be able to educate you. In other words, you're asking the impossible because there is no educating you, there's only pointing out that you're wrong and hopefully value for others who might learn why.

Don't worry, we know from experience that when a theist makes a mistake in this forum, multiple atheist come and correct the mistake.

so if I am wrong, and you clearly and unambiguously explained your point and your point was something different form what I understood atheist will surly come and correct me.